i think what bronei is saying is that ....trading should be consider as an art (creative) regardless of the trading methodology involve to lighten the mind,i believe he is not saying he has a superb system but, tend to be creative in his approach,if anyone study his approach its not new, infact most people have use this method b4 and may feel its not that working, even he adopt S/R level in determined tp and sl. but if we see trading in bronei angle of approach as an ART then trading process becomes very very light.
to me it all sound as positive motivation in trading approach. cheers

If I'm mad, then it's insanity (due to too much chart study, and impending old age), not anger. LOL.

Ok, just to clarify any possible misunderstanding, here's how I see it:

1. Things that can be shown to be universally objective (e.g. 2+2=4) and/or quantifiable: we both agree that is science. OK so far?

2. Things that are subjective or discretionary, but nonetheless involve conscious, logical thought: I see that as a kind of science, or at least something that could be investigated by scientific process, but you see it as art. Am I correct?

Trading is definitely an art. The human brain is much more complex than any computer that has ever been built. A computer can crunch numbers faster than any human can, but it has limited ability to interpret data. For instance, there are some types of trendlines on a chart that can only be interpreted by a human. I realize that there are some types of software that can draw basic trendlines...but the art of interpreting and applying trendlines on a chart is very complex.

Ignored

Why would science become art simply because a biological computer is performing the calculations?

Quoting baronfei

Disliked

What you view is your reality. How much do science knows about subconcious?

Ignored

I think 2+2=5 (just noticed we both used this one Hanover!). Perception does not make reality. Reality, by definition, is how things are, and not how we think they are. My perception does not necessarily reflect reality, and that is why I'm driven to learn. The more pieces I put together, the better chance I have at being able to see the big picture.

Show a group of people a picture, and some will say it is a duck, while others say it is a rabbit. What is it?

For me, art is something that involves physical prowess or skill, or the expression of an innate gift, flair or talent that one is born with. No matter how much I practise, I will never be able to paint like Picasso, work a fretboard with the speed and feel of Jimi Hendrix, dance like the late Michael Jackson, write children's books with the imagination of JK Rowling, play a Hollywood role as effortlessly or convincingly as Robert de Niro, or hit a tennis ball as well as Roger Federer. These folk are artists.

So the question becomes: does trading involve the expression some kind of innate skill or talent, or is it merely an intellectual process that can be learned by anybody? If it's nothing more than the latter, then in my opinion it's pure science.

Now that's not necessarily right or wrong, it's just the way that I see it.

No matter how much I practise, I will never be able to paint like Picasso, work a fretboard with the speed and feel of Jimi Hendrix, dance like the late Michael Jackson, write children's books with the imagination of JK Rowling, play a Hollywood role as effortlessly or convincingly as Robert de Niro, or hit a tennis ball as well as Roger Federer. These folk are artists.

Ignored

Right, but you could still learn to paint, play, dance, write, act, and hit a tennis ball.

So the question becomes: does trading involve the expression some kind of innate skill or talent, or is it merely an intellectual process that can be learned by anybody? If it's nothing more than the latter, then in my opinion it's pure science.

Ignored

Just like your examples above, wouldn't the level of skill and 'artistic flair' affect how well one traded?

- hanover, I appreciate your observations. They're the kind of posts that help move the discussion into an interesting and thought-provoking direction instead of having everybody simply agree and/or (re)cite some generic trading cliché.

- I love and appreciate art (mind you, I'm involved in music making). However I dislike how everybody calls themselves "artist" these days. True artists in the true sense of the word are quite rare.

- It is very important that a trader be "scientific" in his thinking, objective, able to think in probabilities, and so forth. It amazes me how many people get involved in this business (and even come to places like forums and try to "teach" people) when they don't even know what a term like "statistical significance" means. There's a severe lack of scientific education in this business. Some even seem to assume that science doesn't/can't apply to trading, because "trading isn't a 1+1=2 problem". That is hardly a legitimate argument.
I will therefore say that trading is more a Science than an Art simply because (even though it does involve, if not require, "creativity" for sure) it very much relies on such "objectivity", rather than self-expression and aesthetics. In other words, I would rather have a trader teach himself probability and statistics and study the randomness of the markets instead of teaching him art and meditation (even though I love these).

- I don't believe in natural skill/artistry. I believe that there are people who possess an outstanding and inexhaustible amount of passion for something, so much that they get so good and most creative at it. The skill/talent itself isn't born with you, but such 'passion' could be deeply rooted within the person from an early age. You can most definitely teach someone to paint, play, dance, write, act, play tennis, and trade. You can train him so much and for so long until he perfects it. But you can't simply "make" him so deeply passionate about it that he becomes a creator, a true artist. A possible analogy is programming a computer to do very advanced writing and text-processing tasks, but being unable to instill Shakespeare's genius into it.
You've probably heard of the infinite monkey theorem? While statistically valid, it doesn't mean that you can turn a monkey into uncle Will; it's hard enough to do it with a human being let alone a monkey.

If I'm mad, then it's insanity (due to too much chart study, and impending old age), not anger. LOL.

Ok, just to clarify any possible misunderstanding, here's how I see it:

1. Things that can be shown to be universally objective (e.g. 2+2=4) and/or quantifiable: we both agree that is science. OK so far?

2. Things that are subjective or discretionary, but nonetheless involve conscious, logical thought: I see that as a kind of science, or at least something that could be investigated by scientific process, but you see it as art. Am I correct?...

Ignored

Now you have a very objective mindset -clarity- I'm impressed. On the other hand, its 5 in the morning here, and I havent got any sleep last night, but here goes:

1 and 2, yes. As Mr. J has mentioned, there's science behind everything, or as you have stated, at least humans employ scientifical approaches to investigate something, or anything at all. Scientific approach is not hard science until it becomes one.
A surefire formula in trading would mean something like "See that pinbar, long it, tp 50pips, guaranteed 100% success". And that's 1+1=2 hard science.

Now, in trading, we don't see PA, patterns, candles etc coming out in identical fashion, and it never will.

Its like a person living his life in a lifetime. No day would ever be identical. One could approach living life scientifically or in an artistic manner. By suggesting one's life is lived by the latter, doesn't mean he would go out on the street and shoot somebody randomly like GTA4. It means that one should let go of the misleading figures and worries and past experiences, and live it in a way he feels good about it. When something has not been proven or there aint suffiencient data bout it, he could still go and try it out for himself.

Because in trading, whatever stats of the past you might have in your pocket, today is never the same. And because in trading, most of us here who have been in the market for sometime, would most likely never beat those noobs who got 20% overnight in their first trade, or a 100% growth in the first month. Yeah, people would argue they got lucky, or they never put stops, or they will not last in the long run, etc...

Was any you once those noobs I was talking bout? How much did all of you here earn your first demo? When you started your first live ac, I bet my foot you lost a big chunk, if not all of it? You blew your account too right?

If there's hard science in forex, I'm sure its got to be one most of the people here don't understand. Otherwise, as the famous saying goes, "How else could you got yourself into the mess you are now?"

Hanover, I prolly didn't answer your questions directly but that's what I have to say.

For me, art is something that involves physical prowess or skill, or the expression of an innate gift, flair or talent that one is born with. No matter how much I practise, I will never be able to paint like Picasso, work a fretboard with the speed and feel of Jimi Hendrix, dance like the late Michael Jackson, write children's books with the imagination of JK Rowling, play a Hollywood role as effortlessly or convincingly as Robert de Niro, or hit a tennis ball as well as Roger Federer. These folk...

Ignored

Its an innate ability that can be realised (nothing magikal here ... Its already in us (for those who have been trading for a while). Its very similar to a technique called "thin-slicing". Check out Blink by Malcolm Gladwell.

Its not like a ability you could use to do telekinesis or what, its just that trading is already part of you without you knowing it...

Why would science become art simply because a biological computer is performing the calculations?

I think 2+2=5 (just noticed we both used this one Hanover!). Perception does not make reality. Reality, by definition, is how things are, and not how we think they are. My perception does not necessarily reflect reality, and that is why I'm driven to learn. The more pieces I put together, the better chance I have at being able to see the big picture.

Show a group of people a picture, and some will say it is a duck, while others say it is a...

Ignored

No reality could exist without perception. How could it?

When I'm talking to you I look into your eyes, what is it?
To some culture its manners, to some its confrontation, to some its anguish. What is it?

I still see my own approach to market analysis as being more science than art, but I won't attempt to defend that position; I'm just expressing my opinion. All that matters to me is that I continue to learn more about market behavior, and become more proficient in my trading; whether others want to label that 'science' or 'art' doesn't bother me.

While I see analysis as science, I believe that successful trading also involves one's personal psychology.

Making trading decisions purely on intuition is a complete mystery to me, but like I said earlier, it is hard to argue against results. To each their own.

Reality exists independent of life. A planet, for example, does not need a giraffe to see it for the planet to exist. Reality is what is, perception is how life views it.

Quoting Marv

Disliked

The fact remains: You're making bold claims about trading on gut feeling with no analysis/triggers, telling us that all analysis is a waste of time and we should just look at price and guess its future direction, because we have an inner ability to predict things very well when having very insufficient information.

Ignored

And conveniently ignoring that our "instinct" is the result of serious calculation by our brain. The difference between a discretionary trader and a system trader is that the discretionary trader relies on the brain's ability to contruct a complex model on which to base decisions, while the system trader consciously develops a simple model.

I still see my own approach to market analysis as being more science than art, but I won't attempt to defend that position; I'm just expressing my opinion. All that matters to me is that I continue to learn more about market behavior, and become more proficient in my trading; whether others want to label that 'science' or 'art' doesn't bother me.

While I see analysis as science, I believe that successful trading also involves one's personal psychology.

Making trading decisions purely on intuition is a complete...

Ignored

Thank you gentleman, you have made a very good point there!
My concept of approaching trading as "art" frees up one from getting too "attached" by every trend break, doji, patterns, etc.
Because, you could put 2 traders with the chart and get a diffrent analysis, trend lines, etc.

Of course, its never meant for one to trade with pure intuition. I still use fibs et al day in day out. But instead of depending on the them, I use them freely, just to what I "see", at discretion. I also keep in mind that fibs, trends, etc are meant to be broken. From that perspective, I am free of limitations.

For me and it's just my opinion (for all it's worth and that's not a lot - lol), not sure if it's art or science (or whatever), it's dealing with the emotional side of it that is difficult. You can have a great edge, but if you have fear in trading, then you won't be able to use your edge to its full effect.

Actually, just to add another thought to this. Is it fair to say that your method is most effective when the Asian session has been in tight range and least effective when it has moved the market more significantly?

By the way, I think trading is more of an art simply because it is more interpretive. Two people can literally be holding opposing trades and both be profitable.

Actually, just to add another thought to this. Is it fair to say that your method is most effective when the Asian session has been in tight range and least effective when it has moved the market more significantly?

Ignored

Yeah i agree with that. If its tight and waiting for a breakout, it seems to work better i reckon.

Thank you gentleman, you have made a very good point there!
My concept of approaching trading as "art" frees up one from getting too "attached" by every trend break, doji, patterns, etc.
Because, you could put 2 traders with the chart and get a diffrent analysis, trend lines, etc.

Of course, its never meant for one to trade with pure intuition. I still use fibs et al day in day out. But instead of depending on the them, I use them freely, just to what I "see", at discretion. I also keep in mind that fibs, trends, etc are meant to be...

Ignored

-- Free-ranging intuition amongst several devices, then.

In other words,
there's lots of trading strategies, including --

Gut feeling that's well-informed with TA/FA;

free-ranging intuition amongst several devices;

strictly dividing the chart amongst indicators that each label a chart variable;

putting a naturally linked group of patterns on one chart and see which is dominant;

or, going with one indicator and letting go of trades where the indicator fails.